Outside of a Dog, a Book is Man's Best Friend (The Book Thread)

[Prancer]

It's in Dubliners, Joyce's collection of short stories.

And it's in every. single. Intro to Lit text that was ever written. It cannot be escaped.

 

[Nomad]

And it's in every. single. Intro to Lit text that was ever written. It cannot be escaped.

I escaped it.

 

[Prancer]

I don't believe you . If I had to read it eleventy hundred times, everyone else must have been subjected to it at least once.

Not that it's a terrible story, just.....no! Not "Araby" again!

 

[Nomad]

It's true. I never had to read any James Joyce. Or any other Irish writers, for that matter. I had to discover them on my own. My Intro to Lit class was a weird mix of stuff, starting with a couple of Greek plays (The Birds, Oedipus Rex) and ending with J. D. Salinger.

 

[MacMadame]

I only took the required English classes. English 101 (Freshman) and English 102 (Sophomore). So maybe that's how I escaped it.

 

[Nomad]

My Intro to Lit class was an easy A. The prof obviously had stopped caring years ago and just assigned short works all semester. "The Long 18th Century" course that I took afterwards was much, much better. Our reading list was pretty evenly divided between male and female writers 1688-1818. "Women of the 19th Century" was hit and miss. A lot of the obvious choices with a few surprises thrown in.

 

[skatingfan5]

I don't believe you . If I had to read it eleventy hundred times, everyone else must have been subjected to it at least once.

Not that it's a terrible story, just.....no! Not "Araby" again!

Like @Nomad and others, I also escaped "Araby" and until reading your initial post about it, never even knew it existed. (I just now googled it to make sure and nope never ever heard of it before.) Our high school Joyce was "Portait of the Artist ..." and I've already expounded on the torment inflicted by the "Moby Dick" figures of speech notebook. For Dickens we were assigned "Tale of Two Cities" and either "Great Expectations" or "David Copperfield" (I think the former, but as I read both more than 30 years ago, I can't be sure ).

ETA: I will readily admit to being an Austen lover and have read several of her novels multiple times. For me "Pride and Prejudice" and "Persuasion" are a form of literary "comfort food."

 

[Prancer]

Like @Nomad and others, I also escaped "Araby" and until reading your initial post about it, never even knew it existed. (I just now googled it to make sure and nope never ever heard of it before.) Our high school Joyce was "Portait of the Artist ..." and I've already expounded on the torment inflicted by the "Moby Dick" figures of speech notebook. For Dickens we were assigned "Tale of Two Cities" and either "Great Expectations" or "David Copperfield" (I think the former, but as I read both more than 30 years ago, I can't be sure ).

But those are all novels. Short stories are generally assigned for somewhat different purposes.

 

[skatingfan5]

But those are all novels. Short stories are generally assigned for somewhat different purposes.

I know we were assigned short stories, but I really can't remember which that well (except for "The Lottery")- iirc they were mainly for American lit and included stories by Poe, Faulkner, Hawthorne, Twain, and others which my aged brain cannot recall.

 

[Japanfan]

It's in Dubliners, Joyce's collection of short stories. it's been at least 30 years since I read it and I don't remember a thing. Was never in love with Joyce anyhow.

And it's in every. single. Intro to Lit text that was ever written. It cannot be escaped.

Years ago when I worked as an English tutor I had to read it and help clients analyze it a few times. I absolutely hated it! Mind you, I had to read quite a few short stories during that time and disliked 98% of them. More often than not, they tend to be so very bleak.

I really have to wonder who even reads short stories at all. I could never figure out what the 'hidden meaning' was and always had to google it. And why does there always have to be a hidden meaning? Do short story writers actually think about burying their 'deep' themes when they write?

 

[Mad for Skating]

I'm currently obsessed with the Hunger Games trilogy, mostly because the characters are Stolbova and Klimov to a T. I literally drove my best friend crazy about it!

 

[Prancer]

Years ago when I worked as an English tutor I had to read it and help clients analyze it a few times. I absolutely hated it! Mind you, I had to read quite a few short stories during that time and disliked 98% of them. More often than not, they tend to be so very bleak.

Most literature is bleak. That's why neurotic people become English majors and shuffle around campuses in all-black outfits purchased at thrift stores, radiating off-putting intensity and an abhorrence of their fellow man while nursing a tiny spark of hope that love is possible in a cruel and callous world.

I really have to wonder who even reads short stories at all. I could never figure out what the 'hidden meaning' was and always had to google it. And why does there always have to be a hidden meaning? Do short story writers actually think about burying their 'deep' themes when they write?

Do most literary writers try to say something meaningful about human experience through stories? Yes. Deliberately and with malice aforethought. Sometimes their works aren't interpreted as they intended, but that's not an indication that they didn't mean to say something significant.

Are they hidden or deep? That depends. Some of them seem to shout from the page. Steinbeck, for example, isn't exactly subtle.

 

[Japanfan]

Do most literary writers try to say something meaningful about human experience through stories? Yes. Deliberately and with malice aforethought. Sometimes their works aren't interpreted as they intended, but that's not an indication that they didn't mean to say something significant.

Are they hidden or deep? That depends. Some of them seem to shout from the page. Steinbeck, for example, isn't exactly subtle.

It's one thing for a meaning to be hidden or subtle in the sense that it's not readily apparent on the surface, but emerges naturally or organically in a close reading.

It's another entirely for a writer to tell a story about one thing, while intentionally burying a theme or particular meaning within it. I find it hard to believe that most writers have that kind of intentionality - some, perhaps, but not most. I don't think they start with a theme in mind and then write the story to match it - that would be an awful lot of extra work.

 

[Mad for Skating]

Favorite classic novelist for me would be Jane Austen.

 

[Prancer]

It's one thing for a meaning to be hidden or subtle in the sense that it's not readily apparent on the surface, but emerges naturally or organically in a close reading.

It's another entirely for a writer to tell a story about one thing, while intentionally burying a theme or particular meaning within it. I find it hard to believe that most writers have that kind of intentionality - some, perhaps, but not most. I don't think they start with a theme in mind and then write the story to match it - that would be an awful lot of extra work.

There are a lot of writers in the world, some better than others. Those who have literary aspirations want their stories to have meaning for the discerning.

And if that doesn't seem likely to you, well, we are all free to believe as we will.

Hello, @Mad for Skating . Welcome to the thread. There are several Austen fans here; Hunger Games fans, too.

 

[Japanfan]

There are a lot of writers in the world, some better than others. Those who have literary aspirations want their stories to have meaning for the discerning.

I don't disagree. What I question is whether writers aspire to hide the meaning. FWIW the fiction writers I know personally do not take that approach.

There are several Austen fans here; Hunger Games fans, too.

Loved loved loved The Hunger Games. The ending, which I've reread several times, actually had me in tears - not very often a book has that strong of an effect on me.

 

[Prancer]

I don't disagree. What I question is whether writers aspire to hide the meaning.

I don't think they do, particularly. I was an English major before there was a Google and thus had to find meaning on my own, and I always managed. Generally speaking, if I looked up the criticism and read the standard interpretation of a particular work, it was usually the one I considered most obvious. You are, in fact, the first person I have ever come across who has asserted that meanings are "hidden." I have students who tell me they don't understand meaning, but they never seem to think it's hidden, just that they don't see it, which is not quite the same thing.

 

[Japanfan]

Generally speaking, if I looked up the criticism and read the standard interpretation of a particular work, it was usually the one I considered most obvious. You are, in fact, the first person I have ever come across who has asserted that meanings are "hidden." I have students who tell me they don't understand meaning, but they never seem to think it's hidden, just that they don't see it, which is not quite the same thing.

Interesting. In my experience the meanings I found were rarely obvious. For example, there was a story called 'Everything in This Country Must', by Colum McCann. It was a story about a teen girl who fancied a soldier. I thought it was a coming of age tale. Criticism I read emphasized that the larger meaning of the story pertained to the British-Irish conflict. IIRC it was not specifically stated that she was Irish and he was British, and I completely missed the cues that clarified this. Consequently, the 'proper' meaning eluded me.

I always used to feel like a magician conjuring rabbits out of hats. But of course working on analyses as a tutor meant was I on the clock, and having to read and think fast to work out and outline interpretations - more often than not with ESL clients who had limited reading comprehension. That's a bit different than delving into a work of literature as a student or academic who enjoys the task.

I might also just be particularly dense when it comes to story/lit analysis.

 

[Nomad]

....
I really have to wonder who even reads short stories at all. I could never figure out what the 'hidden meaning' was and always had to google it. And why does there always have to be a hidden meaning? Do short story writers actually think about burying their 'deep' themes when they write?

I read short stories but since I'm not in school, I don't look for any "hidden meaning". Some favorites are Chekhov, Dinesen, Jackson, Kipling, Parker...Just yesterday I got the Library of America edition Edith Wharton's short stories (1891-1910), which completes my LoA Wharton collection. I might read that next if her buddy James's Portrait continues to be a slog.

 

[Prancer]

Consequently, the 'proper' meaning eluded me.

T'ain't no such thing. There's a standard interpretation (and often more than one), perhaps, but there's no such thing as a proper or correct interpretation. Most professors and teachers are thrilled to get an original reading as long as it's well supported. Sometimes you run across an instructor who isn't pleased, but that's usually because said instructor is trying to impress her own interpretation on the class.

Whenever I get a paper that reports a standard interpretation, I tend to assume the author was reading Spark Notes or Wikipedia or something of the sort. And I'm pretty much right about that, too. Students would be much better off figuring out their own interpretations instead of worrying about spitting back the "proper" answer, but that's too risky in the present environment.

 

[Jenny]

I liked short stories in school, perhaps because I was a slow reader and always behind the class on the novels (plus I usually had my own reading on the go and devoted my time to those books instead ). I'd have to race through the class novels too much to enjoy them, and often ended up skipping the middle chapters just to get to the end. I went back and read Austen at my leisure later on, but never Dickens or the Iliad or the others I no longer remember.

There are a lot of great Canadian short stories, although yeah, bleak, but now I never read them. I figure if I'm enjoying a story I want more of it so I favour full novels.

 

[gkelly]

I vastly prefer novels to short stories because what I enjoy about fiction is spending time with characters, getting to know them, watching the complexity of interactions and plot developments.

 

[Nomad]

When I can't settle on a full-length novel to read, I'll pick up a volume of short stories. I don't have to remember what happened in one story to make sense of what happens in another. If a particular story doesn't really grab me, I can just skip it. I don't even have to read them in order if I don't want to, although I rarely do that. Most of what I read in college I liked; I've even reread a few of those books. I wasn't a big fan of Death Comes for the Archbishop. Faith-based fiction doesn't often work for me. Two exceptions are Robert Elsmere and The Damnation of Theron Ware.

 

[Prancer]

I enjoy short stories when I am teaching lit and read them, but it's the only time I read them. I don't know exactly why that is, as there are some short stories I really love.



On a completely different note, I am reading The Wilderness of Ruin. It's about a 12-year-old who kidnaps and tortures young children, gets caught and sentenced to juvenile hall, and is released after two years of model behavior after his mother besieges the powers that be with letters asking for mercy and someone takes pity on her. As soon as he is out, he tortures and murders two more children, is caught again, and confesses to the police. In an apparent attempt to exempt the juvenile system from blame for the boy's release, someone from the juvenile system mysteriously shows up in jail and advises him to recant his confession and claim that the police pressured him into confession. The boy recants. Then his two high-powered lawyers, who take the case for the publicity, show up and advise him that juries don't like recanted confessions, so he confesses again and goes on trial.

At trial, the forensic evidence against him, taken with his confession and earlier conviction, ensure that he will be found guilty, so his lawyers argue for clemency. They cite the following:

• The boy's father was abusive.
• The parents divorced when he was young, leaving him with no father figure.
• He was influenced by the sordid media he preferred.

The jury convicted him but recommended leniency because of his age, which saved him from the death penalty.

The kicker is, it's not only a true story, but it all took place 1872-1874. The next time someone tells you how different things used to be in the good old days, hand them this book.

But do not read it yourself if you are disturbed by graphic descriptions of child abuse and murder, because the book pulls no punches there.

There is much more to it, BTW. I didn't give it ALL away.

 

[Jenny]

Sounds like a pleasant read - PASS!

 

[clairecloutier]

Sounds like a pleasant read - PASS!

Yeah. The one thing I cannot read about, or watch shows/movies about, is crimes against children. Any kind of child abuse/murder. I just can't, it's too awful. I couldn't watch Slumdog Millionaire for this reason.

 

[rfisher]

I'm finally over the BookBub feeding frenzy. Some of the really cheap stuff is pretty stupid, but I've read two that were stupid, but I really wish the author wrote a follow up. Which is annoying. One was about earth exploding and how they quickly put together several large ships to send humans out into the galaxies to repopulate. We gloss over how they did that in about a paragraph because that really isn't the point. Our intrepid heroes land on a planet populated by dinosaurish creatures and manage to survive a few years before finding a way to get away from the dinosaurs. I kind of want to know how they did afterwards. The author is a vet who should have done a better job with the animals, but the author blurb also stated that she wrote the book after being diagnosed with cancer and I wonder if there's a reason she didn't follow through with another book. Which is sad. Another was about this guy who could touch an object and feel the emotions (actually he could do more than just feel) of the last person who'd handled the object. The play within the play was about humanoids who did exist when dinosaurs walked earth, but went extinct--not due to the dinos, but that whole asteroid thing. They found a metal object where there shouldn't have been one which the vehicle for the story. What the author didn't do was have the paleontologist speculate on multiple evolutionary pathways. The concept was actually very interesting and they just didn't do much with it because they spent too much time on intrigue.

Now, that I'm on a dinosaur kick, Michael Crichton's Dragon Teeth comes out next month. It's fiction about the real dinosaur fossil hunters in the glory days of the late 19th century. I've read some of the accounts and there was a lot of underhanded stuff going on in the race to find the biggest bones for the big museums back East. Paleontology like archaeology has a murky past.

 

[Jenny]

I actually don't mind kidnapping books for some reason - have read them since I was a kid. The early Mary Higgins Clark were kidnapping stories, and that theme still creeps into her novels from time to time. But other than being scared, the kids always make it through physically unscathed. Sorta like murder mysteries of the Christie variety - I enjoy those very much too.

I was into the Lindbergh story early, and still follow it as new info comes out. I guess one always hopes that other than being killed, the poor kid didn't suffer, and in convincing ourselves of that, we can tuck into the crime story unburdened. And in any case, I subscribe to the theory that he died tragically but accidentally, and his family, led by his father, covered the whole thing up

Definitely agree with you about torture though. There seems to be a thing among novelists that they have to have One Terrible Thing in the middle of their books, and so often I think the book could have been great without it. Reacher books often have that one truly sick character or disgusting scene for example.

For me though, the real line in the sand is animal abuse. I'm currently reading Alec Baldwin's new memoir and there's a chapter called Squirrels. I had to quickly flip through it with one eye before I could relax and enjoy it properly (there was no abuse thankfully). It hurts to know about it, and even things I heard/read/saw decades ago still haunt me.

 

[skatesindreams]

T'ain't no such thing. There's a standard interpretation (and often more than one), perhaps, but there's no such thing as a proper or correct interpretation. Most professors and teachers are thrilled to get an original reading as long as it's well supported. Sometimes you run across an instructor who isn't pleased, but that's usually because said instructor is trying to impress her own interpretation on the class.

Such must have been the case with several of my instructors.
Whenever I attempted to share an idea of my own, I paid the price!

 

[Prancer]

Sounds like a pleasant read - PASS!

It's very Erik Larson-esque, to the point that I am convinced the author thought to herself, "I am going to write a book just like The Devil in the White City, only instead of a serial killer doctor terrorizing Chicago around the time of the World's Fair, it will be about a serial killer kid terrorizing Boston around the time of the Great Boston Fire!"

Larson is the more engaging writer, unfortunately for Montillo, and she doesn't quite pull off some of her more ambitious ideas, but the book is full of interesting Boston history and analysis of what happens to a person who lives almost entirely in solitary confinement for more than 50 years.